You are reading a single comment by @hoonz and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@hoonz
Ok then a quick recap. I don't have the patience to go and quote a bunch of older posts but here goes.
Although this has been compared on a like for like basis rightly or wrongly, bicycle RLJing and motor vehicle speeding are not comparable in any shape or form. A speeding motor vehicle has more to much more embodied energy than a motor vehicle maintaining the speed limit, depending on by how much the speed limit is exceeded by. This is potentially endangering other road users, as motor vehicles are relatively heavy, therefore the energy embodied in them when in motion is very large.
An RLJing cyclist has very low embidied energy and is, bar pedestrians (a low risk of injury or death there to the ped I might add) , only endangering themselves by potentially being hit by one of these motor vehicles with a large embodied energy.
A 1 ton plus motor vehicle does not match a 60kg plus cyclist and bicycle.
Drivers and how good they are, judging road conditions etc. Everyone has a bad day, there is always someone who pushes the envelope too far, is a complete dickhead, is completely clueless, is not thinking, so tired they fall asleep, drunk, is having marriage break-up, is coked up to the eyeballs - life and society basically. These problems people have get taken behind the wheel and will manifest themselves in crashes and the higher the speed, the more likely any mishap, mistake, risky manouvre etc is going to end up a crash, or at the very least a more serious one - due to the large amount of embodied energy in the motor vehicle.
There would appear to be a bunch of statistics related to speed as a factor in motor vehicle crashes saying it is a relatively insignificant factor. After an example crash happened, and as in a lot of cases there were no impartial witnesses, who was asked what speed they were doing? The driver in question. "I was doing 30mph officer, as that's the speed limit. Yes Sir, please Sir, 3 bags full Sir." Everyone is always going to say they were doing the speed limit. Drink drivers always swear they only had 2 drinks. Even if they can't stand up. Your not going to admit an offence when you might get away with it, right? Even with all the crash forensics etc, they will never know exactly what happened. There are so many physical factors and the cops weren't there to see it. The speeds will only be estimated or taken in statements from the drivers. So therefore you end up with a set of statistics that are bogus to some degree, and as such cannot be fully relied upon.
I don't really see how anyone can argue against this point - Speeding is inherently dangerous due to the physics involved. They cannot be disputed. Then there is the issue of there being a standard human reaction time before taking evasive action against an incedent ahead. Speeding means there is less effective time to take evasive action as you arrive faster to said incedent. All this coupled with the human and society factors mean that speed limits are needed and need to be enforced. Thus, a 20 mph speed limit in a built up area can only be a good idea, and all arguements against are baseless blatant fallacies.